Minority-rights groups are charting “new territory” in the fight against Texas’ redistricting plan, using a provision of the Voting Rights Act that cites discriminatory intent as part of an effort to maintain federal oversight of the state’s congressional maps.

State authorities labeled the move a “desperate effort” following recent Supreme Court decisions that strike down regulatory provisions of the 1965 act.

Luis Vera, a LULAC lawyer in San Antonio, said that because Section 3 was untouched by the court, it allows any state to be subject to federal preclearance if discriminatory intent or a demonstrated effort to disenfranchise is found in new voting laws or maps.

Last August, a D.C. court panel found Texas intentionally discriminated against minorities when it adopted new redistricting maps.

The ruling rejected the state’s claim that the changes did not require Justice Department preclearance approval.

The D.C. court ruling was vacated last month, following the Supreme Court’s decision.

Vera said that while the Supreme Court ruling was a huge blow, consideration of Section 3 by the court would give hope of a remedy to groups.

“We are still in the game,” he said.

Vera conceded that the claim of discrimination must now be proved by the groups filing the motion, whereas the state previously had to prove it did not discriminate when it changed laws or maps.

“In the past, the burden was on the state. Now, the burden is on us,” Vera said. “The good thing for us is that the D.C. court already found discriminatory intent.”

All or part of 16 states with a history of discrimination, including Texas, are required to secure preclearance from the Justice Department before changing voting laws under Section 5 of the act.

The Supreme Court found that Section 4 formulas to determine a pattern of past discrimination were outdated and unconstitutional in a June ruling.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott immediately declared the high court’s ruling released the state from Section 5 preclearance provisions.

The strategy to bring Texas under preclearance through Section 3 “is new territory,” said Michael Li, a Dallas lawyer who specializes in redistricting.

“African-American and Hispanic groups recognized as much when they told the D.C. court in their pleadings that it was being asked to tread new ground,” Li said.

A motion filed by Abbott seeks dismissal of the claim filed Tuesday, saying the District Court for the District of Columbia lacks jurisdiction.

The Abbott motion notes the electoral maps in question were passed by the Texas Legislature on June 23.

Lauren Bean, a Texas attorney general’s spokeswoman in Austin, called the motion filed in D.C. District Court an attempt to put the state under federal control.

“In a desperate effort, partisan groups are once again attempting to cede the state’s sovereignty,” Bean said.

A similar motion by the minority rights groups has been filed with another federal court in San Antonio, which is hearing legal challenges to the Texas redistricting maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The San Antonio judges also have raised the issue of jurisdiction, asking lawyers for the minority rights groups and the state to provide legal briefs on the issue by July 22.

There has been no decision or official reply from the D.C. judges on the motion.

Both sides of the case said it’s unknown when the D.C. court will hear the motions, or whether it will defer to the San Antonio court.

Texas is asking the D.C. court to issue an order “dismissing all claims asserted in this case.”